He
says that the term “labour aristocracy” is ambiguous. Pointing out that
different people have used it in different ways, he asks who is included: “Is
it the union bureaucracy and the parliamentarians? Plus the skilled tradesmen? Or,
indeed, is it the entire Western working classes?”[1]

The
most common use of the term “labour aristocracy” is to refer to skilled workers
in the imperialist countries, who are considered to have been bought off with a
share of imperialist super-profits. Bramble argues that this theory does not
explain the actual differences in political outlook among different groups of
workers – skilled workers are not necessarily more conservative than unskilled
ones.

He
adds that the theory of labour aristocracy “exaggerates divisions within the
working class and underestimates the potential for working class unity against
the capitalist class”.[2]

I myself don’t much like the term “labour aristocracy”. I
prefer to talk about “relative privilege”. There are many different forms of
inequality within the working class. The term “labour aristocracy” seems
inadequate to cover them all.

However, I think it is important to recognise that
inequality within the working class exists, and that it can have a big impact
on workers’ political outlook. The better-off sections will often defend their
relative privileges at the expense of other workers (though this is not
inevitable).

Inequality
among workers

Capitalism
develops unevenly, and produces very different wages and conditions for
different sections of the working class.

The
most obvious example is that average pay rates for workers in the advanced
capitalist countries are many times higher than average pay rates for workers
in less developed countries.

There
are also differences within countries. As a general rule, skilled workers are
paid more than unskilled workers. But there are many other differences:

Workers in predominantly male occupations tend to be paid more than workers in
predominantly female occupations.

Workers with permanent full-time jobs are better off than those with casual or
part-time jobs. In many Third World countries, permanent workers are a small
minority of the population, with the majority of workers being in the “informal
sector”, trying to survive on poorly paid casual work.

In the Australian Public Service, there is a formal hierarchy with multiple
levels. The bottom rung of the ladder is called “APS 1” (Australian Public
Service, level 1). It goes up to APS 6, then the terminology changes to EL 1
(Executive Level 1) and EL 2, then above that there are various levels of the
Senior Executive Service. To add to the complexity, with the introduction of
agency bargaining in the Australian Public Service about 20 years ago, the pay
rates in different government departments began to diverge. An APS 3 in the
Australian Taxation Office is paid differently to an APS 3 in Centrelink.

Workers in the mining industry in Australia are currently paid much more than
those in most other industries (though their working conditions are very bad,
and they could lose their jobs when the mining boom goes bust).

In China, workers with urban residency status are much better off than workers
whose official status is “rural”, but who work in urban factories.

Inequality,
conflict and solidarity

Material
inequalities between different groups of workers can contribute to conflict
between them. Often one group of workers will try to defend their position of
relative privilege against other workers who are perceived as threatening it.

For
example, the relatively privileged position of Australian workers compared to
those in many other countries affects attitudes towards immigration. Many
workers in Australia fear that migrants from poor countries will work for lower
rates of pay, and will therefore take jobs from Australian workers and/or cause
Australian pay rates to fall.

This
was a contributing factor to working-class support for the White Australia policy
in the past, and still affects attitudes to immigration and refugees today. It
helps to explain the high level of hostility toward refugees arriving in
Australia by boat. (Of course, this hostility is greatly exacerbated by
politicians and the media, who deliberately set out to create fears about “boat
people”.)

While
recognising that inequality provides an objective basis for potential conflict
among groups of workers, we should not view this as an absolute and unchangeable
obstacle to working-class unity. There is often a political struggle within the
relatively privileged sections of the working class about how to respond. Those
defending the maintenance of privilege may be challenged by those promoting
solidarity.

In
the early 20th century, many Australian unions supported the White Australia policy.
But the Industrial Workers of the World opposed the policy and tried to organise
non-white workers as well as white workers.

The
IWW was crushed by state repression during the First World War. But in
subsequent years Australian unions have at times taken action in solidarity
with workers overseas, with national liberation struggles and with Aboriginal
people.

Similarly
there have been debates within the unions about equality for women. For a long
time the tramways union banned women from becoming tram drivers in Melbourne. In
1956 the union went on strike to oppose management’s plans to train female
drivers. In 1973 the union imposed a ban on the route where training of female
drivers was occurring. After a long campaign, the ban on women drivers was
overturned by a vote of union members in 1975.[3]

Origins
of inequality among workers

What
are the reasons for inequality amongst different groups of workers?

Tom
Bramble criticises the idea that the labour aristocracy gets a “bribe” from the
capitalists, paid for out of imperialist super-profits. He says that skilled
workers are paid more than other workers because their labour power is worth
more.

He
attributes the higher wages in advanced capitalist countries to higher
productivity:

More generally, the
notion that higher wages in the developed countries derive from low wages in
the less developed, a central proposition of [Arghiri] Emmanuel’s version of
unequal exchange, overlooks the fact that while wages may be higher in the
former, the rate of exploitation – the proportion of the value created by the
worker appropriated by the capitalist – is also higher. This apparent paradox
can be explained by the fact that technique of production, and thus
productivity, is usually far greater. Higher wages in the developed countries
simply reflect the much higher value of labour power owing to the skills,
training and cultural development of workers in such countries.[4]

But
why does labour productivity differ so markedly from one country to another? In
particular, why is the productivity of labour generally higher in imperialist
countries than in Third World countries?

The
reasons are complex. Part of the answer is that some of the wealth plundered
from colonies was invested in the colonising powers, resulting in the
development of the productive forces, and of labour productivity, in these
countries.

For
a long time the most advanced factories were built in the imperialist countries.
In the 19th century, textile mills were built in England rather than India. In
the 20th century, car factories were initially built in the United States,
Europe and Japan, rather than Africa, Latin America or most of Asia.

In
this situation, workers in the imperialist countries were able to win some
gains in pay and conditions as a result of their trade union struggles. Because
of the high productivity of labour, the capitalists were able to grant pay
rises without affecting their profits too drastically (though usually they still
had to be forced to do so).

In
addition capitalist governments, aiming to alleviate discontent among their working
class, ensure social peace and promote loyalty to the nation state, introduced
some welfare measures (to varying degrees in different imperialist countries).

The
outcome was a vast gulf between the pay, conditions and welfare rights of
workers in imperialist countries and those in colonial or semi-colonial
countries. The relative privilege of workers in the imperialist countries has
been the material basis for working-class support for a range of racist and
exclusionary policies, including the White Australia policy in the past and
continuing anti-refugee policies in Australia today, the “Fortress Europe”
policy and the attempts to restrict Latin American immigration to the United
States.

This
is not to say that racist attitudes will inevitably predominate among workers
in imperialist countries. Sentiments of solidarity also exist, and can be
further developed by good leadership. But it will remain a very difficult
struggle so long as global economic differences remain as large as they
presently are.

Changes
in the location of industry

In
recent years some high-technology industries have shifted to Third World
countries, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and more recently China.

In
part, this is because technology makes it easier to organise production on a
global scale. It has become easier to close down a factory in one country and
replace it with a factory in another country.

A
range of factors may influence decisions on the location of production,
including closeness to markets, perceptions of political stability, the quality
of infrastructure, and the availability of workers with necessary skills. But
labour costs are a very important factor. Other things being equal, capitalists
will locate their factories where pay rates are lower.

The
shifting of some production to Third World countries (or the threat to do so)
has weakened the bargaining position of unions in imperialist countries. This
has contributed to the gradual decline of pay and conditions in these
countries.

On
the other hand, there has been a growth in workers’ struggles in some of the
countries to which production has been shifted. For example, there have been
many strikes in China in recent years, and Chinese workers have won substantial
pay rises.

Nevertheless,
Chinese pay rates remain far below those in the imperialist countries. Thus
there is still an incentive for capitalists to shift production from these
countries to China.

It
is not just factory work that is being relocated. A lot of call-centre work has
been relocated from Australia to India and the Philippines.

Union
response

How
should unions in the advanced capitalist countries respond to this situation?

The
traditional response of Australian unions has been to call for increased tariff
protection, or for subsidies to companies investing in Australia. Neither of
these is a good solution from a socialist point of view.

A
better approach is to try to assist workers in countries such as China to
improve their pay and conditions. There have been campaigns to shame companies
such as Apple over its treatment of workers in the Chinese factories that make
its products.

Such
campaigns have had a degree of success in some cases. It is hard to judge how
big an impact they have had, because transnational corporations often operate
through subcontractors, and it is hard to check on what is happening in all the
factories.

In
any case, monitoring by foreign NGOs is no substitute for the organisation of
the Chinese working class in strong trade unions. Despite the militancy of many
Chinese workers, the official trade union movement in China is very conservative
and does not support strikes.

How
should Australian unions react when companies threaten to close a factory in
Australia and move production to another country (whether a Third World or
another imperialist country)?

We
should argue that it is the responsibility of the Australian government to
ensure that there are jobs with good pay and conditions for all workers in
Australia. This means the government should take over factories threatened with
closure and run them as public enterprises, or else provide the sacked workers
with alternative work. Public housing, public transport and renewable energy
are some of the areas that governments should invest in and create jobs.

In
support of these demands we should encourage pickets, factory occupations,
street demonstrations, etc.

‘Guest
workers’

Another
issue is the use of “guest workers” (in Australia, workers on 457 visas). In
this case, instead of shifting production to a country where pay rates are
lower (which is not possible for some kinds of work, e.g. mining and
construction), workers from poorer countries are brought in temporarily to work
in a rich country on lower pay and conditions than those prevailing in the rich
country.

How
should we respond?

We
should campaign for the abolition of the “guest worker” (457 visa) system, and
demand that all people coming to work in Australia are entitled to permanent
residency and eventual citizenship. Existing
457 visa workers should be offered permanent residency.

Unions
should recruit the 457 visa workers, and ensure that they receive the same pay
and conditions as Australian workers. This has been done in some cases.

Employer
violations of 457 visa rules

Companies
are only supposed to use workers on 457 visas if workers with the relevant
skills are not available in Australia. In reality, companies frequently
disregard this requirement. Unions have tried to limit the number of guest
workers by ensuring that companies abide by the regulations, and have called
for the law to be made stricter and enforced more rigorously.

Recently
there was a picket in Werribee, an outer suburb of Melbourne, around this
issue. Workers on 457 visas were being used on a construction project. Unemployed
workers with relevant skills living in the Werribee area set up a picket
demanding that they be given jobs on the site. The picket eventually dispersed
after the police threatened to physically attack it.[5]

It
may seem reasonable to demand that companies abide by the legal limits on the
use of 457 visas. However this can create problems if the guest workers are
already in Australia, because it may lead to them being sacked and sent home.

If
employers have brought guest workers to Australia contrary to the guidelines,
unions face a dual task. On the one hand they should try to recruit the guest
workers to the union and defend their pay and conditions. But unions also have
to support their unemployed members who missed out on jobs because of the employer’s
actions. How to combine these two tasks is not easy.

One
approach might be to demand that local workers be employed in addition to the
457 visa workers. The additional cost of employing two sets of workers would be
a deterrent to employers who try to break the rules.

If
the company decides to sack the guest workers and send them home, we should oppose this. If they are nevertheless sacked,
we should demand that they receive redundancy payments equivalent to what they
would have been paid if they had worked the expected length of their
employment.

Conclusion

Such
situations arise because of the highly unequal pay rates of workers in
different parts of the world, which makes it worthwhile for bosses to either
shift the work to another country, or move workers between countries.

One
of our long-term goals should be to reduce inequality between workers in
different countries, by raising the living standards of those in poorer
countries. Pay rates should be leveled up, not leveled down as the capitalists
would like.

Some
gains can be made through successful struggles by unions and other social
movements in Third World countries. Even bigger gains can be made through the
coming to power of socialist governments, which can use their countries’
resources for the benefit of the majority of people, rather than local and
foreign capitalists.

People
in the imperialist countries should do what they can to help these unions,
social movements and socialist governments in Third World countries.

But
radical change is needed in imperialist countries too. A socialist government
coming to power in an advanced capitalist country could give a great deal of
aid to help develop the productive forces of poorer countries, enabling them to
raise the living standards of their people.

The
struggle between solidarity and the defence of relative privilege is part of
the struggle for a socialist world.